The author is a Forbes contributor. The opinions expressed are those of the writer.

Loading ...

Loading ...

This story appears in the {{article.article.magazine.pretty_date}} issue of {{article.article.magazine.pubName}}. Subscribe

What real asbestosis looks like. (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

A West Virginia jury found two members of a Pittsburgh law firm liable of civil racketeering for conspiring with a radiologist to fabricate evidence in asbestos lawsuits against railroad operator CSX.

The jury in federal court in Wheeling ruled against attorneys Robert Peirce and Louis Raimond, as well as radiologist Ray Harron, a physician who supplied diagnoses for tens of thousands of asbestos claims for plaintiff lawyers. The three were ordered to pay CSX $429,240.47, which may be tripled under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Practices Act. CSX will also ask for attorneys fees.

CSX took the unusual step of suing the people suing it in 2007, accusing the lawyers and Harron of engaging in a RICO conspiracy to file fraudulent asbestos claims. The company identified hundreds of cases where Harron had initially found the patients clear of asbestosis, then switched his diagnosis. It presented 11 of those cases at trial, along with testimony of physicians that the plaintiffs had no evidence of asbestosis.

"Of the thousands of asbestos claims we have filed, CSX identified 11 that they claimed were filed without any reasonable basis," Peirce said.

The defense presented testimony of two radiologists that the plaintiffs did have asbestos-related lung disease, Peirce said, as well as testimony of a West Virginia trial lawyer that the defendant attorneys had more than enough evidence to sue CSX.

"For reasons that we cannot understand, the jury ignored this testimony," Peirce said.

"We are convinced that the jury got it wrong, and strongly disagree with the verdict," he said, "but as lawyers, we recognize and respect the jury system and legal process." He didn't say if he'd appeal.

Perhaps the jury wasn't convinced by the testimony of one of the radiologists, Harron, who was also a defendant. The prolific diagnostician surrendered his Texas medical license in 2007 amid claims he'd falsely diagnosed former asbestosis claimants with silicosis, another lung condition that can arise from industrial jobs. The two conditions are rarely found in the same person. The details of his Texas problems weren't allowed to be presented in the West Virginia trial.

CSX argued at trial that Peirce should have known some of his claims were fraudulent since he would send potential plaintiffs back to Harron for subsequent X-rays if they were initially found negative for asbestosis. In at least one case the form spelling out how a plaintiff was exposed to asbestos was written by two different people, and the plaintiff later testified under oath neither he nor his wife had written in the bits describing how he’d handled “asbestos cement and valve packing.” As a matter of law, plaintiffs must establish not only that they have asbestosis but that they were exposed to while working for the defendant.

The jury verdict represents a rare victory for companies fighting what they consider to be fraudulent asbestosis claims. Peirce's law firm prevailed in a 2009 trial in which two of its clients switched places in a screening in order to generate a “positive” asbestosis x-ray. The jury failed to find a Peirce client recruiter had committed fraud.